Tag Archive for: bryan-ure

Nine Murchison & Cumming Lawyers Recognized by 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that nine attorneys have been recognized in the prestigious The Best Lawyers in America® (2025 Edition). This honor is a testament to their unwavering commitment to excellence and providing exceptional service to clients. The recognition underscores a lawyer’s dedication to achieving the best outcomes for their clients, upholding the highest ethical standards, and contributing positively to the legal community.

Jean A. Dalmore, Senior Partner in the Los Angeles office, has been recognized in the area of Litigation – Construction. Ms. Dalmore focuses her practice on construction litigation, representing developers, general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and design professionals in breach of contract, construction defect, professional negligence, and construction site accident cases. Ms. Dalmore also practices in professional liability, defending design professionals in construction, as well as insurance agents, real estate agents, brokers, accountants, and other design professionals in malpractice actions.

Michael J. Nunez, Senior Partner in the Las Vegas office, has been recognized in the areas of Appellate Practice, Litigation – Insurance, and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants. Mr. Nunez focuses his practice on wrongful death, severe injury, transportation, product liability, malpractice, wage and hour claims, and defends clients in lawsuits involving construction accidents, water rights, and premises liability. Mr. Nunez is a founding board member of the Las Vegas Defense Lawyers (a civil defense bar) and serves on the Board of Directors for the Clark County Bar Association.

Friedrich W. Seitz, Senior Partner in the Los Angeles office, has been recognized in the area of Product Liability Litigation – Defendants. Mr. Seitz served as Managing Partner of the firm from 1986 to 2007. He focuses his practice on defending Electrical Utility companies in wildland fire cases, domestic and international product liability, aviation, catastrophic injuries and business litigation.

Matthew H. Printz, Partner in the San Diego office, has been recognized in the area of Litigation – Construction. Mr. Printz focuses his practice on construction and general liability law, representing developers and subcontractors in construction defect litigation, mechanic’s lien actions, and public works projects, while also handling products liability, personal injury, and professional liability cases.

William J. Snyder, Partner in the San Diego office, has been recognized in the area of Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants. Mr. Snyder focuses his practice on litigation in the areas of product liability, catastrophic injury, transportation, general and professional liability, employment, foodborne illness and environmental law/toxic torts.

Bryan J. Ure, Partner in the Las Vegas office, has been recognized in the area of Litigation – Construction. Mr. Ure also practices in the areas of healthcare, product liability, commercial litigation, and personal injury defense.

David A. Winkle, Partner in the Irvine office, has been recognized in the area of Litigation – Health Care. Mr. Winkle focuses his practice in the areas of health law and related litigation, including staff privileges and disputes, professional liability defense, and employment law. He regularly defends hospitals, doctors and other medical providers and professionals in medical malpractice actions.

Gregory A. Sargenti, Associate Partner in the Irvine office, has been recognized in the area of Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants. Mr. Sargenti focuses his practice in the areas of IP litigation, patent and trade mark prosecution, product liability defense, general liability, hospital and professional liability defense, hospitality, and general business litigation, insurance coverage and bad faith litigation.

Tyler N. Ure, Associate Partner in the Las Vegas office, has been recognized in the area of Commercial Litigation. Mr. Ure focuses his practice on insurance coverage and general liability. He also has experience in all areas of commercial litigation as well as creditor’s rights.

The Best Lawyers in America® is one of the most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession. Being included is a reflection of a lawyer’s impact on their field and the trust they have earned from both clients and fellow legal professionals.

Seven Murchison & Cumming Lawyers Recognized by 2023 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

/in ,

Michael Nuñez , Anton Handal, William Snyder, Bryan Ure, and Tyler Ure have been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America 2023. Joshua Praw and Georgiana Nikias have been recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Michael J. Nuñez is a Senior Partner and the Partner-in-Charge of M&C’s Las Vegas office and is a member of the firm’s Diversity Committee. Mr. Nuñez focuses his practice on general and professional liability litigation, hospitality, HOA, D&O, breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate litigation, contract disputes, and employment related matters.

Anton N. Handal is a Partner in the San Diego office and heads up the firm’s Business Transactions and IP Practice Groups. His practice focuses on business transactions including M&A and corporate structures. Mr. Handal also specializes in handling complex business disputes involving the Lanham Act, patent infringement, breaches of fiduciary duty, partnership break-ups, professional liability, products liability, anti-trust, and trade secrets litigation.

William J. Snyder is a Partner in the San Diego office and is the co-chair of the firm’s Food Borne Illness Practice Group. He focuses his practice on defending civil litigation lawsuits, including cases involving foodborne illness, product liability, catastrophic injury, maritime liability, general liability, representation of public entities, environmental law/toxic torts, professional liability, and employment litigation.

Bryan J. Ure is a Partner in the Las Vegas office focusing his practice on defense litigation in the areas of construction, business, products liability, and healthcare.

Tyler N. Ure is Senior Associate in the Las Vegas office focusing his practice on insurance coverage and general liability. He also has experience in all areas of commercial litigation as well as creditor’s rights.

Joshua W. Praw is a Partner in the Los Angeles office focusing his practice on commercial general liability, products liability, toxic tort, and construction defect. Mr. Praw Co-Chair’s the firm’s Summer Associate Program and Post-Bar Law Clerk Program where he trains, mentors, and oversees the firm’s summer associates and post-bar law clerks.

Georgiana A. Nikias is an Associate Partner in the Los Angeles office. She has experience in business litigation, trademark litigation, copyright litigation, employment law, products liability, general liability, art law, and commercial real estate litigation.

Best Lawyers is “the oldest and most respected peer review publication in the legal profession. Recognition in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers.”

Murchison & Cumming Names Four New Partners and One New Associate Partner

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce Todd A. Chamberlain, Steven J. McEvoy, Mary C. Trinh, and Bryan J. Ure have been named Partners and James N. Kahn an Associate Partner. “We are very happy to welcome Mary, Steven, Todd and Bryan as Partners in the firm and James as an Associate Partner,” said Managing Partner Dan L. Longo. “We look forward to their contributions to the firm and service to our clients for many years to come.”

Mr. Chamberlain is based in the Los Angeles office and focuses his practice on representing insurers in connection with coverage issues arising out of construction defect and product liability matters, commercial liability, carrier v. carrier contribution actions, disputes involving Cumis counsel and prosecuting and defending declaratory relief actions. Mr. Chamberlain also provides advice in risk management and has represented numerous insurers in high exposure mediations and arbitrations.

Mr. McEvoy is based in the Los Angeles office and focuses his practice in the areas of transportation law, product liability, toxic tort and general liability defense. He specializes in the handling of matters involving bus and motor coach roll-over accidents with catastrophic injuries and wrongful death. Mr. McEvoy was recently named a “Southern California Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine. Only 2.5% of lawyers are named to the list, which consists of lawyers 40 years old and younger or practicing 10 years or less.

Ms. Trinh is based in the Los Angeles office and specializes in the area of medical malpractice, and has achieved successful results in the defense of physicians, healthcare facilities and outpatient surgical centers. Her other areas of practice include general liability matters, landlord-tenant habitability claims, and skilled nursing facilities. Ms. Trinh has defended and obtained favorable outcomes for a wide range of clients, including manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and property owners.

Mr. Ure is based in the Las Vegas office and is experienced in all phases of litigation involving a diverse mix of matters. A significant part of his practice focuses upon cases deemed as complex litigation or with high damages exposure. In addition to providing litigation defense, Mr. Ure values offering practical solutions and advice to his clients aimed at reducing liability and risk. In recognition of his experience and efforts, Mr. Ure has been recognized by Nevada Business Magazine as a Legal Elite top attorney for the second consecutive year.

Mr. Kahn is based in the Los Angeles office and focuses his practice on general liability, product defect and premises liability defense. He is experienced in handling a wide array of personal injury matters, public entity defense, business/commercial litigation, and intellectual property. Mr. Kahn has produced significant results for large companies as well as small businesses and individual proprietors. Mr. Kahn enjoys problem solving and provides an aggressive yet straightforward approach to defending his clients.

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP
With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier, AV-rated civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Las Vegas, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. The firm is a member of the USLAW and Insuralex Networks.

Realities of Subrogation Litigation

/in

By: Bryan J. Ure

Murchison & Cumming Blog: Post 85

View Link

Introduction

Subrogation litigation is a very broad topic that encompasses many different practice areas. It is ultimately however a practice specialty unto itself. It includes innate complexities of subrogation law, but also requires the skills of a Plaintiff’s attorney, and the knowledge of a specialist practicing in niche areas. These areas can range from fire litigation to workers’ compensation law. Complete mastery of subrogation requires the attorney to wear many hats, and requires the client seeking recoupment of their money to understand this dynamic.

Subrogation Basics

At its core, subrogation arises when a party who was obligated to a pay another party seeks recovery against a third party who may have committed an act giving rise to liability. A simple example is that of an insurance company who pays upon a homeowner’s policy to a homeowner after a fire. If the insurer determines that the fire may have been caused by a negligent electrician, the insurer may seek to “stand in the shoes” of the homeowner and pursue litigation directly against the electrician. The insurer often maintains this right by contract with the homeowner through the insurance policy, or it may independently seek an assignment of rights from the homeowner. In certain areas, such as workers’ compensation, the right of the insurer to proceed is authorized by statute.

A right to subrogation also exists in a non-insurer-insured situation. For instance, in lieu of suing a subcontractor for contractual breach over construction delays, a construction company may allow the breach, but then seek rights from the subcontractor to pursue one of its vendors who caused the breach by delaying needed materials.

Subrogation Pitfalls and Promises

Subrogation litigation can be a complex area. The attorney pursuing subrogation must be well versed in Plaintiff’s litigation, subrogation law and practice, as well as the area of law upon which they sue. As noted in the illustrations above, this could mean that the attorney must be knowledgeable of the intricacies of law ranging from fire litigation, workers’ compensation law, and construction law, to name a few. But even with knowledge of a specialty field, a key mistake that is often made by attorneys is a failure to understand the practicalities of subrogation as it relates to both liability and damages. While the legal theories of recovery may be the same, the practicality of subrogation differs very much from a typical Plaintiff’s case. This reality of subrogation law can often trump a “good case”.

In typical Plaintiff’s litigation, there is a maxim that a weaker liability case can be helped by a strong damages component. Unfortunately, this does not always hold true for subrogation. In typical litigation, the Plaintiff is asserting their own personal rights which a juror may relate to. In subrogation, the party bringing the case is generally a corporation or insurer who lacks broad appeal to a jury. In this sense, a weaker liability case which may ordinarily be softened by a sympathetic Plaintiff is removed or too distant. Further, in subrogation, there is often a bar to recovery of general damages or pain and suffering that an ordinary Plaintiff might be afforded. This sliding scale of general damages can vary a great deal and brings uncertainty to a defending party which can result in productive settlement negotiations. But with subrogation, you are generally left trying to recover upon what was paid out of pocket. Practically speaking, a personal injury Plaintiff could recover only a nominal sum for out of pocket damages yet a large sum in general damages. This is not true for a subrogating Plaintiff.

Another difficulty arises in whether the attorney retained to pursue subrogation is being compensated hourly or by contingency. Because subrogation litigation can sometimes be long, difficult, and technical, it can sometimes be difficult to find attorneys or firms willing to proceed with this work on a contingency basis. This holds especially true when one considers the reality of expert witnesses needed for difficult cases.

Defense attorneys fighting against subrogation claims also carry a bias. Unfortunately, subrogation claims are viewed as weaker (for reasons explained above). Even if damages are very high, attorneys and defendants often do not feel that they are required to pay near the full amount because the subrogating party should be willing to greatly discount their recovery. This problem stems not from laws supporting subrogation, but rather from history and the psychology of a weakened unsympathetic corporate Plaintiff.

Even with its pitfalls, subrogation’s weakness can also be its strength. The out-of-pocket expenditures made by a subrogating Plaintiff represent hard costs that can be boarded at trial. Depending upon the case, this can mean that if liability is proven, a near 100% recovery of damages can occur if the payments were reasonable and necessary (dependent upon the jurisdiction).

When is Subrogation Appropriate?

This can be a difficult question to answer because it requires a thorough assessment of subrogation practicalities, cost, liability and damages, as well as assessment of the area of law upon which a subrogating party is basing its claim upon. If all the pieces fit together, subrogation can be a powerful tool. Subrogation litigation benefits everyone, as it often results in companies or insurers paying upon claims quickly if they know they can recoup such payments from an at-fault third party. If you are pursuing subrogation, it is vital that you retain experienced and knowledgeable attorneys.

With offices in California and Nevada, Murchison & Cumming, LLP has several attorneys who have experience with subrogation litigation if you need further guidance.

Beer Law: The Distribution Problem For Craft Brewers In Nevada

/in

By: Bryan J. Ure

Murchison & Cumming Blog: Post 85

View Link

For Nevada brewers, the largest obstacle to profiting from their product is the frustrating inability to distribute it without the help of a commercial distributor. This frustration is compounded by the fact that it is counter-intuitive to the nature of brewing which often times can be a labor intensive and a grass-roots process. Many brewers would be more than willing to load up their trucks with kegs and sell the product themselves, but simply cannot in light of current Nevada law. Obtaining rights to a commercial distributor is not an easy answer either. It is a costly and often times nearly insurmountable task for a microbrewery, except for those already in the game. The irony is that many of the major craft beer producers today who use commercial distributors attained the ability to do so only because they were successful as self-distributors very early on. Despite the current self-distribution legal stranglehold in Nevada, there are some solutions.

Nevada’s law against self-distribution is only one sentence long, and is codified as Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 369.382:

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 369.386 and 369.415, a supplier shall not engage in the business of importing, wholesaling or retailing alcoholic beverages in this State.

For purposes of this statute, a brewer who makes beer in Nevada is considered a “supplier”. A supplier cannot sell beer unless they have an agreement for distribution with a state-licensed distributor (369.386 and 369.415). As one might imagine, a distributor holds the power, and obtaining the rights to use them can be a cost-prohibitive endeavor. Most mircobreweries likely do not have the production volume or expenses to compete in a market dominated by the large breweries in this country. In short, this means good luck getting your beer on your local grocer’s shelf space.

The above prohibition raises an obvious question, can Nevada brewers sell their product to the public in a cost-effective manner without the use of a commercial distributor? The answer is yes, and effectively so. In fact, the manner in which sale of craft beer is permitted in Nevada is ideally suited to the craft beer consumer and current trends. If you would like further information on how to legally retail beer in Nevada, or need legal counseling on starting or running your brewery, our attorneys can help.

Quenching Nevada’s Thirst for Beer: Checklist for Starting a Nevada Brewery

/in

By: Tyler N. Ure and Bryan J. Ure

Murchison & Cumming Blog: Post 85

View Link

For many, turning their passion into a business comes with equal parts excitement and trepidation. When it comes time to turn that passion into profit, that initial enthusiasm can be quickly tempered by legal and regulatory hurdles. Those who have turned their home-breweries into commercial breweries know this pain particularly well. Nevada presents unique challenges to this process in part due to laws that have not kept up with the emerging craft brew industry.

While the manufacture and sale of beer is highly regulated at many levels, craft breweries continue to expand at an ever increasing pace. Nevada is lagging well behind other states, but it is expected that the brewery drought of the hot desert will soon be quenched. In 2015, craft breweries expanded to make up 21% of the total U.S. Beer market. With such growth, Nevada should follow suit.

The market for Nevada is prime, and this is good news for brewers. Nevada, which imposes more stringent regulations than most other states is missing out on some of this phenomenal growth. In 2014, Nevada had 25 breweries, ranking 39th in breweries per capita. This presents both challenge and opportunity for those willing to embark on their goals.

Craft Brewers are no strangers to complex tasks. Just like careful attention is paid to mash schedules and boil times to get the best product in the glass, there’s a pattern to follow if you want to get that product to a paying consumer. To get started, the checklist seems easy enough, but it can be complicated by the practicalities of regulation. Because most brewers enjoy brewing first, and business second, the goals of opening a brewery can be at odds for your typical brewer. If you have the right amount of dedication (and capital), there are a few basic requirements to get started.

You’ve most likely already done step one, figure out what to call your brewery. You’re going to want to make sure that the name, or a similar name, is not already taken. A quick Google search is a good place to start, but you should also check the Nevada Secretary of State, and the United States Patent and Trademark Database.

With the perfect name selected, it’s time to form a legal entity and obtain trademark protection. Forming a legal entity, such as an LLC or a corporation, is an important early step as it would help protect your personal assets from the liabilities of the brewery. It’s also a good time to hammer out the responsibilities between several owners of the brewery. At this point, it’s a good time to contact a lawyer specializing in the brew industry. A mistake on your corporate setup could cost you both time and a lot of money. Especially if you have partners and employees, the process becomes more complicated legally. Contacting qualified legal counsel will also be beneficial for the remaining few steps on your way to opening a Nevada brewery or brewpub.

A trademark protects your brand name and logos associated with the brewery’s goods. The trademark process can take 12 to 18 months and begins by filing an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). If the USPTO determines that there is a reason your mark should not be registered, you will be notified and given an opportunity to respond. If there is no objection to application, the mark is published giving others a chance to object. If there are no objections, the mark becomes registered by the USPTO. Each name and individual label for your beer should be trademarked.

You are also going to need to file a “Brewer’s Notice” with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”). It can be a daunting and lengthy process, so it is best to start as soon as practical. Before you begin making beer for sale, the TTB has to approve your operation, recipes, and beer labels.

Nevada also requires a brewer to obtain a license from the State of Nevada, as well as other local license. There are two routes at this point: the operation of a brewery or the operation of a brew-pub. Brew pubs are an exception to the three-tier scheme which allows a brew-pub operator to sell directly to consumers. There is, however, currently a 15,000 barrel annual cap on production. There is no cap on a brewery’s production, but a brewery is prohibited from selling beer directly to the public. In addition to obtaining a state license, a brew pub must obtain an appropriate local retail liquor license.

If you’ve decided to open a brew-pub, it’s time to start brewing. If you’ve opened a brewery, one more note of caution– you’re going to want to carefully consider your agreements with distributors. A contract with a distributor is a long-term arrangement and can be difficult to terminate. This is perhaps the single most significant hurdle to starting a brewery and making it profitable. Nevada law on distribution is unique and challenging, but there are solutions.

Despite the legal hurdles, momentum is still strong in the craft-brewery industry. Having the right information and guidance is critical in ensuring your business opens smoothly. If you would like more information on how to start a Nevada brewery, we can help. As Nevada and California lawyers, we maintain the experience necessary to helping you open and run your brewery without having to worry about the regulations that reduce most brewer’s plans into nothing more than wort.

Tyler N. Ure is an attorney and home brewer who has a fondness for brewing german altbier. Bryan J. Ure is also an attorney, who has a fondness for drinking german altbiers.

Two Murchison & Cumming Attorneys Named to Nevada Legal Elite List

/in ,

Nevada Business Magazine

View Link

LAS VEGAS – Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that two of its attorneys have been recognized in Nevada Business Magazine’s Legal Elite 2016 list. This year’s honorees are Senior Associate Bryan J. Ure (Products Liability Defense, Commercial Litigation and Insurance Law) and Associate Ian M. McMenemy (Personal Injury, Commercial Litigation and Business Law).

Mr. Ure’s primary practice areas include insurance law and coverage, subrogation, and commercial litigation. Mr. McMenemy focuses his practice on commercial litigation with an emphasis on general liability, products defect, corporate litigation, and contractual disputes. “This is a well-deserved acknowledgement for two exceptional attorneys,” said Michael J. Nunez, Senior Partner and Partner-in-Charge of the Las Vegas office.

Nevada Business Magazine releases an annual list of Nevada’s top attorneys as chosen by their peers. With over 7,000 nominations, less than 5% of the attorneys were selected throughout the State of Nevada. In order for attorneys to be included, they were required to pass several levels of scrutiny. Following the nomination process, all ballots were reviewed for eligibility and each voting attorney was reviewed and confirmed in good standing with the State Bar of Nevada.

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP
With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier, AV-rated civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Nevada, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. The firm is a member of the USLAW and Insuralex Networks.

Arbitrator Issues Favorable Defense Award in Nevada Personal Injury Action

/in

Michael J. Nunez and Bryan J. Ure received a favorable defense award in a Nevada personal injury action.

The plaintiff litigated and sought damages against the defendant, alleging spinal trauma incurred as a result of a collision caused by the defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant swerved into the side of his vehicle while executing a lane change. The defendant admitted to changing lanes, but denied seeing the plaintiff’s vehicle.

The arbitrator awarded the plaintiff only six percent of his medical bills.

Products Liability Case against Manufacturer Dismissed

/in

Bryan J. Ure gained complete dismissal of a refrigeration and freezer unit manufacturer in a subrogation lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff’s insurance company. The insurance company alleged that a unit manufactured by the refrigeration company and installed in the plaintiff’s home contained a defective ice maker, water line and water valve which resulted in flooding and subsequent remediation of the home.

The arbitration brief was submitted and, based on its contents, the plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit in exchange for an agreement that the defendant would not seek costs against them.

M&C Welcomes Two Associates to its Los Angeles and Nevada Offices

/in ,

LOS ANGELES – Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Mary C. Trinh and Bryan J. Ure have joined the Los Angeles and Nevada offices, respectively, as associates.

Ms. Trinh is a member of the Emerging Risks & Specialty Tort Litigation practice group, also focusing her practice in general liability and product liability matters.

Her previous experience includes working for the State Bar of California and handling a wide variety of general liability matters for a boutique firm. Ms. Trinh, who is fluent in Chinese dialect Chiu Chau, has also been actively involved with the community. While in college, she tutored students at Castelar Street Elementary School in the Chinatown area of Los Angeles.

Mr. Ure focuses his practice in the areas of general liability, construction defect and premises liability, representing businesses, insurers and subcontractors in the State and Federal Courts.

He is experienced in all phases of litigation and advising on construction law, mechanics lien law, state contractor’s board issues, administrative law and representation before the public utilities commission. Mr. Ure, who previously worked at a Las Vegas-based civil litigation firm, said he joined Murchison & Cumming because he was impressed by the firm’s reputation.

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP

With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Las Vegas, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. The firm is a member of the USLAW Network. For additional information, please visit our website at www.murchisonlaw.com.